vaultwarden_get_reset_password_detailsRetrieve a member's reset password key and KDF settings to perform an admin password reset. Provide organization and member IDs to get the required reset details.
Get the data needed to perform admin password reset for a member (their reset_password_key + KDF settings)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| json_body | No | ||
| member_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing that the response contains sensitive material (reset_password_key, KDF settings), but says nothing about admin-only authorization or what happens if the member has not enrolled in reset.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the key payload named up front and no filler. Nothing to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly covers the main return fields (reset_password_key, KDF settings). However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, leaving the identifiers and passthrough fields unexplained is a meaningful gap in an otherwise adequate definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters. The description never mentions org_id or member_id, the two required identifiers, nor explains the form/params/json_body passthrough fields. It therefore leaves the caller to infer the entire input contract from bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (get the reset-password data for a member) and names the concrete payload returned: reset_password_key plus KDF settings. It clearly differs from the sibling mutation vaultwarden_put_reset_password, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'needed to perform admin password reset' implies this is a prerequisite read before the reset mutation, but the description never says when to call it, what precondition (admin privilege) is required, or that vaultwarden_put_reset_password is the follow-up.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.